Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Egg - A new defence?


kevcam
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6389 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all!

 

I started a claim against Egg recently and I have just received a copy of their defence. The whole defence reads:

 

1. The Claimant is put to proof that unlawful charges have been placed on his account which have resulted in a loss of £1,022.48 as alleged.

 

Thats all they have said.

 

My claim was was for an amount of £1,022.48 but it was for £330.48 in PPI which was never requested and £692 in charges.

 

Is this a usual defence or is this something new.

HBOS Plc - £9,954.65 Received partial settlement - Court 6/12/06 default removal / compensation / declaration

MBNA - Settled in full £2,377.33

Abbey National - MoneyClaim filed 26/06/2006 £883.90

Lloyds TSB - Claim Filed 11/08/2006 £2,630.00

Egg.com - Claim Filed 11/08/2006 £1,393.60

GE Money - Claim Filed 11/08/2006 £965.22

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are getting bored possibly. As they are under no obligation to file a full defence at this stage, why not just put in 1 line which sums up their position.

 

Saves them time, money and having to look at your record to figure out the intrincasies (spl?) of your case.

 

Sit back wait for allocation q just like everyone else.

 

I havent even started with Egg and probably wont until summer, as I want some solid results so I dont have to go to all of hassle. I have won 8 on the bounce so far over £10k and its never taken more than 1 day of my time for each.

 

I dont wish to get bogged down for the smallest sum which is these stubborn b***ards!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sod that, I'm taking them to court over £20. It's going to cost them that in travel alone if they want to take my case to court.

 

The idiots have already offered to pay my £30 court fee in a sub-par settlement for no logical reason having previously refused to refund the £20, so I'm more than happy to cost them as much as I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...